3 ms·
set copies=2 or 3 and it can recover corrupted data on that filesystem at the expense of storage
by anecdotal1 3y ago
set copies=2 or 3 and it can recover corrupted data on that filesystem at the expense of storage
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y agoSSDs are very likely to put all those copies into a single physical block underneath. Since ZFS makes backups easy, better stick to copies=1 and do backups often.
- p01ge 3y agoWrong. ZFS' copies are made across several different devices.
- vladvasiliu 3y agoWhat do you mean? The discussion in this particular sub-thread is about running ZFS on a single drive (think laptop). Does it have some kind of mechanism to send the write for a copy "later enough" that it will likely end on a different physical block?
- poige 3y agoI meant "primarily this copies mechanism is targeted towards multiple devices setup". With a single SSD it's indeed prone to the caveat which was pointed out; even if not due to being mapped to same storage "area" but also because SSDs often fail completely. Also makes sense to note that __when__ narrowed to a single-disk setup ZFS' can be interchanged with Btrfs; almost same set of features but lesser overhead and complexity.
- poige 3y agoWrong. ZFS' copies are made across several different devices. (2nd copy)
- krylon 3y agoIf you are using ZFS on a single drive, they reside on the same drive by necessity. Which was the case the parent posters were talking about.
- anecdotal1 3y agoI shouldn't think that's true. Why wouldn't the firmware be splitting writes across different physical chips for performance and wear leveling reasons?